State v. Snyder
2016 Ohio 7881
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Justin Snyder was indicted on multiple counts including pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor (Counts 1–4) and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material (Counts 5–14); he pleaded guilty to Counts 1, 2, 5, and 6 and the remainder were dismissed.
- Counts 1 and 2 were both pandering charges under R.C. 2907.322(A)(1); the indictment did not expressly identify separate victims for those two counts, while other counts referenced specific victims.
- The trial court ordered a PSI, victim impact statement, and psychosexual evaluation before sentencing; the PSI was considered at sentencing but is not in the appellate record.
- The trial court sentenced Snyder to 3 years on each of Counts 1 and 2 (to be served consecutively) and 1 year on Counts 5 and 6 (served concurrently), for an aggregate 6-year term.
- Snyder appealed, arguing (1) Counts 1 and 2 are allied offenses and should have merged and (2) the court failed to make the statutory findings required to impose consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Snyder) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts 1 and 2 are allied offenses requiring merger | Offenses involve separate victims and distinct harm; sentencing record (including PSI) shows separate conduct | Counts 1 and 2 do not identify different victims or dates in indictment and no bill of particulars was sought, so they are allied of similar import | Court held no plain error; convictions may stand separately because record (sentencing hearing/PSI) indicates separate victims and conduct |
| Whether trial court made required findings for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Court sufficiently engaged in correct analysis at sentencing and identified risk to public; required findings discernible from record even if statutory language not recited verbatim | Court failed to make the statutorily required findings on the record (per Bonnell requirement) | Court held the sentencing transcript shows the trial court made the necessary findings (particularly R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b)); consecutive sentences upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (2015) (explains allied-offenses analysis and burden for plain-error review in allied-offense claims)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (sets three-factor allied-offenses test and R.C. 2941.25(B) framework)
- State v. Washington, 137 Ohio St.3d 427 (2013) (requires review of entire record, including sentencing hearing, in merger analysis)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial courts must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and incorporate them in the entry; no talismanic recitation required)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) requires clear-and-convincing standard to disturb sentencing findings)